The central legal principle established is that amendments to pleadings should be allowed liberally to ensure effective adjudication of disputes, and mere delay in seeking amendments is not a valid ground for rejection.

JUDGMENT

1. Challenging order dtd. 17/10/2016 passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mandya, on I.A.no.XX filed under Order VI rule 17 of CPC, in O.S.no.199/2007 as per Annexure-A, this writ petition is filed.

2. Sri V.S. Hegde, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S.no.199/2007 filed for partition and separate possession of their share in suit properties. It was submitted that after entering appearance, respondents/defendants filed written statement opposing suit. Thereafter trial Court framed issues and parties went into trial. At that stage, plaintiff herein filed I.A.no.XX under Order VI rule 17 r/w Sec. 151 of CPC for amendment of plaint by way of addition of pleadings. Though, in affidavit filed in support of application, it was stated that when matter was posted for cross-examination of defendants' witnesses, while searching for documents, plaintiffs traced certain documents executed by defendants in favour of plaintiffs' father. Contents of said documents revealed that there were no sale transaction between plaintiffs and defendants. It was in fact only a loan transaction, therefore, contention of defendants that they were bona fide purchasers would be incorrect. It was further stated that plaintiffs were not aware of contents of documents until tracing of same. As they revealed nature of transaction between defendants and plaintiffs' father as loan transaction, and said factor would be material for proper determination of dispute between them, allowing of application for amendment was necessary.

3. It was further submitted that contention of defendants in their objections filed to application, it was stated that application was filed after nine years of filing of suit, was intended to overcome admission about nature of transaction until then contended to be sale transaction. But now sought to be contended as loan transaction would amount to introducing new cause of action and also that application for amendment of pleadings was filed without challenging order rejecting application for production of document namely, alleged 'oppige patra', and therefore, not maintainable.

4. On consideration, trial Court passed order impugned herein rejecting application for amendment on wholly untenable grounds. It was submitted that one of reasons assigned namely that application was filed after delay of 09 years would be contrary to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1128. wherein it is laid down that all applications for amendment ought to be considered liberally, and unless additional prayer sought were to be barred by limitation or filed to overcome admission or with malafide intention etc.

5. It was submitted that plaintiffs had very clearly pleaded that their father was addicted to bad vices and might have transacted with defendants without legal necessity of joint family and had in fact, went into trial based on said contention, upon discovering material which would indicate that it was only loan transaction, seeking for amendment was necessitated. It was submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that mere delay in filing application for amendment would not be a ground for rejection and unless relief based on proposed amendment were already time barred, amendment was to be granted. Therefore rejection of application was wholly untenable and called for interference.

6. On other hand, Sri. B. Ravindra Prasad, learned counsel for respondents no.7, 10 and respondents no.8 (a) to (c) submitted that suit was filed in year 2007 and application for amendment was filed in year 2016, after nine years that too after adducing evidence. Therefore, it was rightly rejected by trial court. It was further submitted that plaintiff had admitted about transaction between plaintiffs' father and defendants being sale transaction. However, in amendment, it was sought to be contended as loan transaction,